Defenses to Criminal Charges

Here are some common defenses that criminal defendants raise.

To convict a criminal defendant, the
prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, the
defendant gets an opportunity to present a defense. There are many defenses,
from "I didn't do it" to "I did it, but it was self-defense” and
beyond. Read more about some common defenses below.

Didn't Do It

Most often, defendants go with the
claim that they simply did not commit the alleged act in question.

The
Presumption of Innocence

All people accused of crime are
legally presumed to be innocent until the point of conviction, whether that
comes by way of trial or plea. This presumption means that the prosecution must
convince the jury of the defendant's guilt, rather than the defendant having to
prove innocence. A defendant may simply remain silent and not present any
witnesses, then argue that the prosecution failed to prove its case. But, in
practice, defense attorneys often present their own witnesses in order to counteract
the government’s case.

Reasonable
Doubt

The prosecutor must convince the fact-finder of the defendant’s guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." This
heavy burden
of proof requires that the jury (in some cases, the judge) have a moral
certainty that the defendant is guilty. With such a high burden on the
opposition, defense attorneys often impress upon juries that thinking the defendant committed the
crime isn’t enough for a conviction.

The
Alibi Defense

An alibi defense consists of evidence
that the defendant was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time of
the crime. For example, assume that Jones is accused of committing a burglary
on Hampton Street at midnight on September 14. Alibi evidence might consist of
a friend’s testimony that he and Jones were at the movie theatre from 11:00
p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on the night of the 14th. Additional alibi evidence would be the movie tickets and a
credit card statement showing that Jones purchased them shortly before 11:00
p.m.

The Defendant Did It, But...

Sometimes an acquittal is the result even
if the prosecutor showed that that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit
the alleged act. (For more on this issue, see Jury Behavior.)

Self-Defense

Self-defense is commonly asserted by those
charged with crimes of violence, such as battery,
assault
with a deadly weapon, or murder.
The defendant admits that he or she did in fact use violence, but claims that
it was justified by the other person's threatening or violent actions. The core
issues in self-defense cases often are:

Who was the aggressor?

Was the defendant's belief that
self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?

If so, was the amount force the
defendant used also reasonable?

Self-defense is rooted in the belief
that people should be allowed to protect themselves. In part, this means that someone
doesn’t
necessarily have to wait to the point of actually being struck in order to act in
self-defense. Whatever the circumstances are, any force that the would-be
defendant uses has to be reasonable under the circumstances. (For a more
complete picture of this defense, see Self-Defense.)

The
Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is generally based on the
principle that punishment is justified only where defendants are capable of
controlling their behavior and understanding that what they’ve done is wrong.
The insanity defense prevents some people who can't function fully from
being criminally punished. (For much more on insanity, including the procedures
and different tests for determining it, see Pleading
Insanity in a Criminal Case.)

The insanity defense is an extremely
complex topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its
nuances. Here are some major points of interest:

Despite popular perceptions to the
contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of "not guilty by reason of
insanity." When they do, they often have a hard time proving it. (Insanity
is just one exception to the general rule that the prosecution must prove all
components of a case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant need
prove nothing.)

Various definitions of insanity are
in use because neither the legal system nor mental health professionals can
agree on a single meaning of the concept in the criminal law context. Among the
most popular definitions is the "M’Naghten rule," which essentially defines
insanity as the inability to distinguish right from wrong. Another common test
is known as "irresistible impulse," which applies to someone who may
know that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness be unable to resist
committing it.

Defendants found not guilty by reason
of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to mental
institutions. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than
they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.

An insanity defense normally rests largely
on psychiatrists or psychologists, who testify after examining the defendant,
his or her history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint mental health
professionals at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford
to hire their own.

Under
the Influence

Defendants who commit crimes under
the influence of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning
was so impaired that they cannot be held accountable for their actions.
Generally, however, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. The
theory is that defendants know (or should know) how alcohol and drugs affect functioning, and that they shouldn’t be off the hook because they chose
to get themselves intoxicated. (For much more on the law, see Being Drunk: A Defense to Criminal Charges?)

Some states have an exception to this
general rule: If the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires
"specific intent," he can argue that he was too drunk or high to have
formed that intent. (Specific intent generally describes a situation where the
defendant intends the precise consequences of an act in addition to intending
the act itself—see General Intent Crimes vs. Specific Intent Crimes.) Specific intent
may be only a partial defense, however. For example, it might lead to
an acquittal for assault with specific intent to kill but a conviction of
assault with a deadly weapon, the latter of which typically doesn't require specific intent.

Entrapment

Entrapment occurs when the government
induces a person to commit a crime that he wouldn’t have otherwise committed.
However, law enforcement officers can provide opportunities for defendants to
commit crimes without committing entrapment. Entrapment is often a difficult to
prove. (For a detailed discussion of it, see Entrapment
as a Defense to a Criminal Charge.)

Get Help

If you face criminal charges, consult
an experienced criminal defense attorney. A knowledgeable lawyer will be able to
fully explain the applicable law and protect your rights. For help finding a
lawyer in your area, check out Nolo's trusted Lawyer
Directory.